Influence of Rainfall Scenario Construction Methods on Runoff Projections

Abstract

The future rainfall series used to drive hydrological models in most climate change impact studies is informed by global climate models (GCMs). This paper compares future runoff projections in ∼11 000 0.25° grid cells across Australia from a daily rainfall–runoff model driven with future daily rainfall series obtained using three simple scaling methods, informed by 14 GCMs. In the constant scaling and daily scaling methods, the historical daily rainfall series is scaled by the relative difference between GCM simulations for the future and historical climates. The constant scaling method scales all the daily rainfall by the same factor, and the daily scaling method takes into account changes in the daily rainfall distribution by scaling the different daily rainfall amounts differently. In the daily translation method, the GCM future daily rainfall series is translated to a 0.25° gridcell rainfall series using the relationship established between the historical GCM-scale rainfall and 0.25° gridcell rainfall data. The daily scaling and daily translation methods generally give higher extreme and annual runoff than the constant scaling method because they take into account the increase in extreme daily rainfall (which generates significant runoff) simulated by the large majority of the GCMs. However, the difference between the mean annual runoff simulated with future daily rainfall series obtained using the constant versus daily scaling methods is generally less than 5%, which is relatively smaller than the range of runoff results from the different GCMs of 30%–40%.

Intercomparison of different uncertainty sources in hydrological climate change projections for an alpine catchment (upper Clutha River, New Zealand)

“…4) to process the raw RCM runs (from 1990 to 2099) and generate high-resolution climate change projections at the hydrological model scale. Two different bias-correction methods, linear transformation (LT; as described in Lenderink et al, 2007) and quantile mapping (QM; as described in Mpelasoka and Chiew, 2009), were used to correct the RCM data. Both methods have been successfully used by a number of studies (e.g.…”

Spatial and temporal variability of rainfall in the Nile Basin

“…The QPM is analogous to one of the methods for deriving climate change scenarios or for propagating climate change signals to historical observations by perturbing these series using information from climate model runs (see Mpelasoka and Chiew, 2009;Willems and Vrac, 2011). In a number of studies including Chiew (2006), Harrold et al (2005), and Harrold and Jones (2003), the quantile mapping method, which QPM makes use of, was used to scale ranked historical daily rainfall quantiles in quantile dependent methods to establish future climate change scenarios.…”

Projected hydrological changes and their consistency under future climate in the Chao Phraya River Basin using multi-model and multi-scenario of CMIP5 dataset

“…Additionally, those statistical downscaling and bias correction methods have been compared to reduce the bias of future climate projection and to investigate their impacts on river discharge projections (e.g. Freddie et al, 2009;Lafon et al, 2013).…”